Homology of assessment of visual function in human and animal models

Integrating epidemiology and toxicology in neurotoxicity risk assessment

Neurotoxicity risk assessments depend on the best available scientific information, including data from animal toxicity studies, human experimental studies and human epidemiology studies. There are several factors to consider when evaluating the comparability of data from studies. Regarding the epidemiology literature, issues include choice of study design, use of appropriate controls, methods of exposure assessment, subjective or objective evaluation of neurological status, and assessment and statistical control of potential confounding factors, including co-exposure to other agents. Animal experiments must be evaluated regarding factors such as dose level and duration, procedures used to assess neurological or behavioural status, and appropriateness of inference from the animal model to human neurotoxicity. Major factors that may explain apparent differences between animal and human studies include: animal neurological status may be evaluated with different procedures than those used in humans; animal studies may involve shorter exposure durations and higher dose levels; and most animal studies evaluate a single substance whereas humans typically are exposed to multiple agents. The comparability of measured outcomes in animals and humans may be improved by considering functional domains rather than individual test measures. The application of predictive models, weight of evidence considerations and meta-analysis can help evaluate the consistency of outcomes across studies. An appropriate blend of scientific information from toxicology and epidemiology studies is necessary to evaluate potential human risks of exposure to neurotoxic substances.